首页> 外文期刊>Journal of clinical laboratory analysis. >Comparison of iSED and Ves-Matic Cube 200 Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Measurements With Westergren Method
【24h】

Comparison of iSED and Ves-Matic Cube 200 Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Measurements With Westergren Method

机译:韦斯特格伦法测量iSED和Ves-Matic Cube 200红细胞沉降率的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test is performed widely in laboratories. Besides the traditional Westergren method, new methods have been developed for ESR measurements. We aimed to compare the instruments using new methods, iSED (Alcor Scientific) and Ves-Matic Cube 200 (Diesse Diagnostica Senese, Italy) with the Westergren method. Methods: Blood samples from 136 patients were taken into EDTA tubes for automated analyzers and citrated tubes for Westergren method. Patients were divided into three groups-low, medium, and high-according to their sedimentation rates. Precision, stability, and interference studies of the methods were performed. Results: The iSED sedimentation method (n = 136) yielded a slope of (0.61-0.84), with an intercept of (-2.32 to 1.89), which resulted in a mean bias of 13; and the Ves-Matic Cube 200 method (n = 136) yielded a slope of (0.85-1.00), with an intercept of (0.00-3.07), which resulted in a mean bias of 1.4 in Passing-Bablok regression analysis compared to the reference method. Conclusion: iSED sedimentation showed a poor correlation and a high bias (>10%) with the Westergren method, and Ves-Matic Cube 200 method showed a higher correlation and a lower bias than the iSED device when compared with Westergren reference method. These instruments should be carefully monitored. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
机译:背景:实验室中广泛进行红细胞沉降率(ESR)测试。除了传统的Westergren方法外,还开发了用于ESR测量的新方法。我们旨在将使用新方法iSED(Alcor Scientific)和Ves-Matic Cube 200(意大利Diesse Diagnostica Senese,意大利)的仪器与Westergren方法进行比较。方法:将136例患者的血液样本分别放入自动分析仪的EDTA试管和Westergren法的柠檬酸盐试管。根据其沉积率将患者分为低,中和高三组。进行了方法的精密度,稳定性和干扰研究。结果:iSED沉降法(n = 136)产生的斜率为(0.61-0.84),截距为(-2.32至1.89),平均偏差为13。而Ves-Matic Cube 200方法(n = 136)的斜率是(0.85-1.00),截距是(0.00-3.07),与采用的方法相比,Passing-Bablok回归分析的平均偏差为1.4。参考方法。结论:与Westergren参考方法相比,iSED沉降与Westergren方法相关性较差且偏差较高(> 10%),而Ves-Matic Cube 200方法与iSED设备相比具有较高的相关性且偏差较小。这些仪器应仔细监控。 (C)2014威利期刊公司

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号